Madras High Court
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. ... vs Gillette India Limited on 18 April, 2022
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Limited
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.Rajesh KumarJha,
Having its registered Office at
227, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III,
Okhla, New Delhi - 110 020. ... Plaintiff
vs.
Gillette India Limited,
Rep by its Managing Director,
The Manor, 3-B, 3rd Floor
31/14A, College Road,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai - 600 006,
Tamil Nadu. ... Defendant
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC Read With Order IV
Rule 1 of Madras High Court O.S.Rules Read With 22 of Design Act,
prayed for Judgment and Decree:-
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
(a) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors,
principals, proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors,
franchisees, representatives and assigns from infringing the registered
design of the plaintiff bearing No.193988.
(b) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors,
principals, proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors,
franchisees, representatives and assigns from Issuing or telecasting the
impugned advertisement or in any other manner disparaging the goodwill
and reputation of the plaintiff and its product sold under the trademark
VEET in any other advertisements and in all media whatsoever including
the electronic media, social media and / or print media or making
comparison, importing direct or indirect reference to hair removal creams,
thereby conveying a message to the public that the hair removal creams are
harmful to the skin or contains chemicals that are harmful to the skin or in
any other manner whatsoever denigrating the hair removal creams.
(c) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors,
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
principals, proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors,
franchisees, representatives and assigns from Issuing or telecasting the
impugned advertisement, the story board of which is filed as Plaint
Document No.8, in any language or issuing any other advertisement which
is in any manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and
its product sold under the trademark VEET in any other advertisements and
in all media whatsoever including the electronic media, social media and /
or print media.
(d) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors,
principals, proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors,
franchisees, representatives and assigns from using the depiction of the
plaintiff's product or any other product deceptively similar to that of the
plaintiff's in its advertisement or in any other manner disparaging the
goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and its product sold under the
trademark VEET.
(e) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors,
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
principals, proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors,
franchisees, representatives and assigns from using any other indicia
whatsoever to associate with / depict the Plaintiff or its products in its
advertisements issued in any and all media whatsoever including the
electronic media.
(f) The plaintiff be awarded damages to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- for
disparagement, denigration and tarnishing of its goodwill and reputation by
the Defendant by its impugned advertisement.
(g) The plaintiff be additionally awarded punitive and exemplary
damages against the defendant.
(h) Costs of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff, and any other relief
which the Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case be allowed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants.
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
For Plaintiff : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh for
Mr.R.Saravanakumar
For Defendant : Mr.Juvraj Singh for
M/s.Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
**********
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed for injunctive relief and damages in relation to an
alleged disparaging advertisement. The parties entered into a Memorandum
of Compromise dated 11.04.2022. Both parties submit that the suit may be
disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise.
2. The Memorandum of Compromise has been duly signed by both
parties to the suit and their respective counsel. On perusal thereof, there is
no legal impediment to the disposal of the suit in terms thereof.
3. Accordingly, C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017 is disposed of in
terms of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 11.04.2022, which shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
form an integral part thereof. In view of the settlement between the parties,
there will be no order as to costs.
18.04.2022
rna
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.768 of 2017
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
